Jump to content

Plustek has died


too old to care

Recommended Posts

Plustek on left, Canon on right.  I hope to go back there this year, and if I do I will shoot it with a medium format camera.  Maybe that will make the difference.  

 

I can see the Plustek is much sharper and has more detail in the shadows but I don't know what I'm looking at because you don't say how they were scanned, what resolution, settings, etc.?

 

From such a tiny section of the print I'd have expected to see more defined less mushy grain from the Plustek but this may be down to not sharpening the image enough or not sharpening at the right stage in post processing, but the Canon is just plain soft. Additionally your mid tone is darker on the Plustek image which exaggerates the grain in the sky and makes the whole image feel harsher, you could knock this down a bit and get a smoother contrast range.

 

 

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Scans from both scanners are 4800 dpi.  With the Canon program you cannot do much, just select unsharp mask, auto tone, etc.  with scans from the Plustek I can use Silverfast to select much more, and try for a normal looking print without much Power Point processing. I did try sharpening the Canon shot, but it did not make much difference. I don't do any sharpening with the Plusket scans, actually I sometimes soften them.   The Plustek scans are from last summer, when the scanner was still working. 

 

Yesterday i I tried reloading Silver Fast 6, but it did not make any difference, it still cannot find the scanner.  This afternoon I am going to try calling Plustek.  If that does not result in help, than I've decided to go for a new Epson V800 once we have cleared some hurdles with the bills that have come up from retiring.  I've spent enough time trying to get the Plustek to work, and I am still not sure that it is not a fault with my operating system.  

 

Thanks,

 

Wayne

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Final update on Plustek.  I called Plustek this afternoon, and was surprised to have a live person (Robert) on the phone in less than a minute.    Within thirty seconds of him listening to my problem, he started into a sales pitch on their new scanners, ones that can do batch scanning.  

 

I told him that I did not need to scan dozens and dozens of slides, that I had already done that with my old Plustek.  I just wanted to know if my operating system was compatible with Silverfast, and if my scanner was defective.  He then told me he was in marketing, and that he would transfer me to a tech.  

 

In less than 30 seconds he came back and introduced me to Mike.  Mike was a dream to work with.  He told me that there is a problem with El Capitan, and that they have a patch that will solve my problems.  It requires going to both download sections for Silverfast and Plustek.  I went where he took me and downloaded the patches.  

 

After following the downloads installations I connected the Plustek again.  No change, all I got was the flashing green light, which I have had since the problem started.  He then told me that there was a hardware problem too, probably in the motherboard.  I explained to him my background (EE-aerospace, later medical equipment, 40 plus years testing and repairing electronic equipment).  He said with my background, and the fact that the scanner was no longer under warranty, I might as well as look around inside.  I told him that I had already been inside, and could find nothing else wrong.  

 

He said for $180+shipping, they would repair my scanner, but suggested that I spend that money on a newer one, maybe one from B&H.  I agreed that it does not make sense to spend 2/3 the cost of a new one, so I thanked him for his suggestions.  

 

Mike then told me of additional things that I could look for, a hidden connector, possible motherboard problems, switch problems, and how to get to them.  I took his advice and took the scanner pretty much apart and checked everything he mentioned.  I could not find anything wrong, so I just put the parts in the trash.  

 

I loved the results of Plustek, but seeing how fragile they are inside, almost homemade, but built with some degree of quality, I have decided to replace it with the Epson.  I realize that the image quality may not be the same, but I feel better with their manufacturing expertise, and their engineering abilities.  

 

In case you want to know what one looks like inside, here is mine mostly torn apart.  To the left you see the green board with red and black wires leading to it, that is the light source.  Under the light source is the photo sensor, shown detached at the end of the black ribbon cable.  It mounts just under the light source in the box section, and also moves back and forth.  The long black element is the sensor.  

 

The jack screw moves the photo detector back and forth over the negative.  The motor that drives the jack screw is full right, inside its own box section and held by four blue stand-offs.  

 

The main PC board is mounted on the floor of the scanner, to the right.  On it is the microprocessor, along with the rest of the central components.  Changing any one component would be rather simple with the right tools, including a static free work station.  I do not have one, or the parts, so I did not feel bad taking it apart since it was going in the garbage anyway.

 

Would I recommend Plustek, yes, but be careful.  Their tech service is terrific, their product works well, but their engineering is questionable.   

 

Wayne 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, darn, but in some respects, a result.

I think I'd still be opting for a new one, but agree, if you are doubtful about the innards, then maybe jump ship.

Is the V800 any/significantly better inside? Just asking.

What are the two costs? What does a V800 cost, and what does a new Plustek cost?

Either way, the post mortem is appreciated. I'll handle my Plustek carefully.

Gary

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From B&H  

 

8100 $308

8200 SE $310

8200I $450

Epson V800 $641

 

The Epson can scan medium format and 35mm.  I think it can also do 4x5.  I just do not know how the resolution compares with the Plustek.  Doc, you have the V700 and Plustek, have you compared them, to see the grain, tones, etc?  

 

I have not been inside the Epson, no one that I know has one, and I am sure they will not let me near with my screwdrivers, or hammer.  

 

My wife has hit me over the head several times, she keeps wondering why I am doing this exercise, instead of just ordering the Epson.  From a person that repaired electronics most of their life, I just hate to throw something away.  

 

Thanks,

 

Wayne 

Edited by too old to care
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One more example.  I also shoot medium format.  The following photo was from a Hasselblad w/80mm lens, Tri-X rated at 200, developed in Rodinal 50:1.  The negative was scanned with the Canon 8800f scanner at 4800 dpi.  

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by too old to care
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a scan of the same negative printed wet 8x10.  Ilford Pearl RC paper using a no. 3 contrast filter.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by too old to care
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you're talking.

If it were me, it's not, but..........

 

Keep the Canon for M/F, it works, so sit with that.

Buy the 8100 or 8200SE, at $300 +/-.

 

Personally, I'd be buying a used 8100 or similar, at about $150.

 

I'd want a film scanner for the 35mm, (Steve B will have the same thoughts, I've read his many times). And for M/F the flatbed style is more than adequate.

Yes, Doc Henry does use an Epson for 35mm occasionally, but primarily he uses the NikonScan I believe.

 

An option, if the Canon wasn't as good as you wanted. Buy the best Plustek, (8200i from your list), and an older Epson, something ike the V700, or V600. I'm trying to find an older V5/600 myself.

Gary

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

And cropped side by side.  Wet print on the left, negative scan on right.  The scan of the wet/paper print is the results I am looking forward to with the new scanner.  Hope the Epson can deliver.  

 

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken, from the results you post it's a no-brainer. I'd tentatively venture though that a neg scanner "should" be better than a scan of a wet print, but I can't back that up with science, just gut.

 

Irrespective, the results above would say to me, save money, wet print what you want, and scan it. If you need a quick and dirty scan for interwebby stuff, just use the flatbed (Epson in your sonn case).

Gary

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a plan Wayne.

If it's any consolation, I am on El Capitan (10.11.3) myself, with a used 8100. I use either Vuescan, or SilverFast, both work and work well.

Try the new Plustek, in tandem with your current flatbed Canon. If there is a shortfall in either, I'd suggest it was the Canon to be honest, but it works with M/F so leave it as is. Plus you could "proof sheet" your 35mm with it too.

Gary

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Plustek is on order from B&H.  It comes with a new version of Silverfast Version 8.  I already have this version loaded, and with the patch that I downloaded yesterday, I probably will be able to start using the scanner as soon as it arrives.  

 

Gary, on the negative scan vs the scan of the printed image in the example above.  Remember, my negative scan was from my Canon 8800f, not the Plustek.  The Canon is soft, it cannot hold a candle to the Plustek.  I can live with that for medium format because the negative is so much larger, but not from 35mm.  And the wet print was using a good enlarger, a focus tool, and a high quality enlarging lens with fine grain paper.  

 

Thanks to your assistance, and to everyone else on helping me make this decision.  I was having such a hard time because I did not know which was bad, my operating system or the Plustek.  Everything I tried had no effect, and the emails to Plustek were not answered.  Customer service is so important to me, and I was very disappointed with theirs, until I spoke to Mike yesterday.  He was wonderful, he did not mind walking me through downloading the patches, and even made suggestions on what to look for inside the scanner.  

 

That is when the light went off in my head, I have been fighting two problems, both my operating system and my scanner are bad.  Mike suggested the extreme cold weather we had during the move St. Louis to Florida may have damaged it.  We will never know.

 

Thanks again,

 

Wayne 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wayne , you remind in our thread comparison scanners, I have compared

mostly Epson V700 (DM=3.7) versus Nikon Coolscan V (DM=4,5). The result is fine for Epson

and a bit better with Nikon for 135mm , confirmed by the table in this link * (translation Google French-English)

https://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.studio-plus.fr%2Fphoto-argentique%2Fcomparatif-scanners-de-negatifs.html&edit-text=

I never had Plustek. May be Gary can tell you Plustek vs Minolta Dimage 

The wet print has more definition.

Yes Gary is right I don't have MF camera.

Best

Henry

* original link in french :

http://www.studio-plus.fr/photo-argentique/comparatif-scanners-de-negatifs.html

Edited by Doc Henry
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pleased that you resolved the issue, Wayne, and that Plustek were helpful, once you actually managed to achieve contact. I think you are ending up with a good solution, and look forward to you sharing the results on Henry's "I love film..." thread.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Henry for the link.  I remember reading that before, and it reinforces what I have learned over the years.  Mainly the Plustek is good, considering the cost.  Also, something that I did not remember, that is it makes the grain seem larger, which has been my experience.  That is why my wet prints look better than scanned prints, smaller grain, and more of evenly spaced across the print.  Best way to describe it is like shooting a scene with two different films, one slow with fine grain, the other high speed with large grain.    

 

Thanks again,

 

Wayne

 

PS, I thought that you had a Plustek too; getting old I guess, my golf game has really deteriorated, now my brain has too.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Update on Plustek 7600.  A new 8100 joined the family today.  I unboxed it and set it up almost immediately.  Once I connected it to the computer I deleted my old versions of Silverfast 6 and 8 and loaded the new version of Silverfast 8.  Of course, it did not work.  I called Plustek and was instantly connected with a young lady named Bubbles.  She was very professional, friendly and knowledgable.  It took a few minutes for her to figure out what was wrong, but she got my computer and scanner working perfectly.  I took an old scan from a recent roll and scanned one of the negatives again.  Attached is a reduced copy of that scan.  I am happy again with Plustek and their excellent service.  

 

Wayne 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...